Aundraye Marcellas Curry v. the State of Texas

• Court: Texas Court of Appeals, 10th District (Waco)
• Decided: February 26, 2026
• Docket: 10-25-00145-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Court of Appeals Tenth Appellate District of Texas

10-25-00145-CR

Aundraye Marcellas Curry, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

On appeal from the County Court at Law of Navarro County, Texas Judge Amanda Doan Putman, presiding Trial Court Cause No. C42128-CR

JUSTICE HARRIS delivered the opinion of the Court.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Aundraye Marcellas Curry was convicted of stalking, enhanced, and

sentenced to 40 years in prison. We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Curry’s appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw and an Anders brief

in support of the motion asserting that he has diligently reviewed the appellate

record and that, in his opinion, the appeal is frivolous. See Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967). Counsel's brief evidences a professional evaluation of the record for error and compliance

with the other duties of appointed counsel. We conclude that counsel has

performed the duties required of appointed counsel. See Anders, 386 U.S. at

744; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); see also Kelly

v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-320 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re Schulman, 252

S.W.3d 403, 407 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).

In reviewing an Anders appeal, we must, "after a full examination of all

the proceedings, ... decide whether the case is wholly frivolous." Anders, 386

U.S. at 744; see Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S. Ct. 346, 102 L. Ed. 2d

300 (1988); accord Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 509-11 (Tex. Crim. App.

1991). An appeal is "wholly frivolous" or "without merit" when it "lacks any

basis in law or fact." McCoy v. Court of Appeals, 486 U.S. 429, 439 n. 10, 108

S. Ct. 1895, 100 L. Ed. 2d 440 (1988). After a review of the entire record in this

appeal, we have determined the appeal to be wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe v.

State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Accordingly, we affirm

the trial court's judgment.

Counsel's motion to withdraw from representation of Curry is granted.

LEE HARRIS Justice

Curry v. State Page 2 OPINION DELIVERED and FILED: February 26, 2026 Before Chief Justice Johnson, Justice Smith, and Justice Harris Affirmed; Motion granted Do Not Publish CRPM

Curry v. State Page 3